Leo's problem is that his performance in every movie is consistently very good. Hell, even his performance in Shutter Island was above average. But, of course, that's the problem because the Academy wants to reward you (specifically speaking, the Best Actor) for transformation + acting rather than just great acting. He hasn't changed his physical appearance to suit any particular role like the guys that have beaten him (Jamie Foxx, McConaughey, etc.).
Best actor: Homosexual with aids Supporting actor: transvestite Supporting actress: tortured slave You can put any working actor in those roles and they will be nominated. Blanchett was the only one who defined her character. And yes, wolf was a kiddie movie made for boys who want to feel like badass men. As if that's what it takes. DiCaprio needs a better film if he expects to win. Btw, what is the importance of the picture with the arrows?
I think you are right, those who truly transform have a better chance of winning... and it is funny because that is really only the case with actors, not actresses (or females in leading roles if you wanna be PC)... at least on a yearly basis. 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 - all of the actors had to drastically change their looks speech. Jeff Bridges went musical in 2009, and Penn was another "underdog" in 2008 in Milk. Day-Lewis was another man in 2007, 2006 was Whitaker. You have to go all the way back to 2001 and Training day to find a "non-transformative" role really... but while Denzel didn't have to transform physically, he became a thug in every other aspect. Wolf was the first role where I felt Leo really changed himself and his style, with maybe the exception of his role of Calvin Candie in Django (supporting role)... but he went up against Waltz, who is apparently an academy darling thanks to Tarantino's wit.
Well to be fair, the Best Actress award had it's own transformation awards: 2002: Nicole Kidman 2003: Charlize Theron 2004: Hilary Swank .... Waltz is a tremendous actor in his own right. I think the reason why you and many others think that Leo took the Wolf role and really made it his own is because he fit the persona of the character he was playing which was a rich millionaire playboy that people adored. That's just a generality but we all see Leo as a playboy (e.g. his gfs) that people adore (he's good at what he does) so to play the Wolf role wasn't that farfetched...he just needed to be a bit more over the top. I bet you anything if his next role deals with some sort of human deconstruction (e.g. cancer patient fallen from grace, etc.) he'll win for sure. He's taken on too many flamboyant playboy roles lately (Aviator, Great Gatsby, Wolf..) and I'm sure the Academy is bored of seeing that. Sidenote: He might want to distance himself from Scorsese for a while to get more "range".
You're so tough behind your computer man. You know nothing of cinema, please name your best film of 2013?
Your ignorance just outed you, dumb****. Best Actor: Heterosexual with AIDS. Not only did you just prove you didn't watch the movie, you also proved you're an ignorant ****hole by assuming only gay people got AIDS in the 80s. And just for good measure, "tortured slave" is redundant. My advice: Go back to watching Duck Dynasty and let intelligent people discuss modern film. McConaughey played that role with a consistent edge and was brilliant throughout. Yes, playing an 80s Texan smooth talker wasn't a big stretch for him, but playing a man willing to fight an entire administration to get medication for himself and fellow AIDS suffers (including the gays his character hated at first), that was the brilliance. He never wavered. It was slightly better than Jordan Belfort, and Jordan Belfort was ****ing amazing. Leto (unlike Jennifer Lawrence) was spot on with his accent the entire time. It was genuine and it was real. I ****ing loathe his music, but I had to give him props for that role, he did a damn good job. Yes, the subject matter is conducive to Academy success, a straight playing a gay, a woman playing a man, Sean Penn playing a slightly less r****ded Sean Penn. There are formulas to Academy success, but Leto earned that Oscar.
I didn't see DBC but I assume you've seen 12 Years a Slave so how would you compare Leto's performance to Fassbender's performance in 12 Years? I know you think Leto earned the Oscar but I thought Fassbender's performance was just downright awesome.
You seriously replied to call me an imbecile over a typo? I didn't realize I needed to proofread every post. *******.
The face of unbridled white oppression winning an Oscar over a AIDS-riddled transvestite crack w****? Not gonna happen.
I didn't mean to demean Waltz, just that his two Oscars were via the dialogue written by a script writing genius is all. Of course, Leo's was too in Django. I used that as a reference because that is one of the few roles Leo actually changed it up a bit. Yup, I realize females in leads who "transform" have a better chance as well and that it does happen... but it is far from the norm or expected. That is the reason I included "at least on a yearly basis." I'm actually quite harsh on Leo, so please don't think I believe he deserves a win just because he's been shafted all those times before. I completely agree with others that he doesn't challenge himself very much for his roles. With that said, I think the role in Wolf was extremely challenging and just because he looked the part doesn't mean he was made for the part. The acting was intense and insane in Wolf across the board, no one could be that way without transforming themselves. Sure he nailed the "suave" rich guy who got what he wanted, but he also became an addict and an ******* who beat his beautiful wife and nearly killed his kid. To prepare for a role so dynamic I'm sure he went through a roller coaster of emotions while filming. In my opinion, Leo's character's story arc was extremely rich and detailed, while most of the other roles were 1-2 trick ponies. Again, not undercutting what the others did - just trying to show why I think he should have won. I'm completely happy with a Longhorn getting the nod, and he had one of the better acceptance speeches in my lifetime. I'm a huge Matthew McConaughey fan, more so in recent years than Leo... but, I think his acting in True Detective is far better than Dallas Buyer's. I think the subject matter makes DBC seem more dynamic than the role it really was. Much like Tom Hanks in Philadelphia when he won. Well said regarding the jackass. McConaughey was great but other than losing weight I don't see the acting challenge (he played a stubborn Texas boy set in his ways), and that is what I base my votes on. Which role was I most blown away by? Which role will I remember in five to ten years? To me, that goes to the most unique roles - and Wolf was chalked full of them.
Everyone knew that Dallas Buyer's only had to compete with 12 Years a Slave when it came down to Leading/Supporting Actors and best picture. The Oscars love white guilt and LGBT causes. Not saying movies shouldn't be made about the two subjects, just that if a movie is made about them - and it is pretty good, it'll win awards.
If he and Jonah Hill follows through and does that Richard Jewell biopic I think that would be a pretty good opportunity for him to win in a supporting role.
Wolf of Wall Street is a movie I would watch again any time because it was entertaining throughout despite the length. That is an achievement you only get out of directors as good as Scorsese. Even Tarantino's pacing can tend to drag his films along instead of getting right to the point. Scorsese is visceral. Going right to the meat and potatoes. Every line of dialog in that movie was ridiculous. Jonah Hill blew my mind. Leo was as good as ever. The scene with Leo and the FBI agents on the boat was as iconic as anything in Goodfellas or Raging Bull. It was that good. McConaughey's role was transformative in the sense that I don't see he himself being like his character in any way. The mannerisms and accent may have been easy, but the personality couldn't have been different. It wasn't Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York (The best performance I've ever seen), but it was still impressive how even and controlled McConaughey kept his character throughout a movie in which he's the central focus of the scene 85% of the time. Dallas Buyer's Club was just too important of a story to be told. McConaughey made you feel the desperation. It was riveting.
Agreed on all fronts. It all came down to the fact that I liked the characters in Wolf more than any other movie this year. It was like Pulp Fiction going up against Forest Gump... an unfair fight, because the adversary pulls out a kitten to distract the judges. I personally can't wait for the director's cut of Wolf... bring on the four-plus hours of debauchery.
It was a total guy's movie in that regard. It pulled no punches. It was classic Scorsese indulging the audience for 3 hours. The problem with Leo is he's Susan Lucci all the sudden. Martin throws him a bone, he gets his due, then he's always the bridesmaid because somebody else knocked it out of the park.
LOL! Perfect analogy. He needs to be bugging the crap out of Tarantino to write a leading role for him. He'll need a quirky character, because I don't think he is strong enough of a character actor to pull a Day-Lewis or Bale role out of is butt. See J. Edgar for details.
